Criticism and creativity

I just saw a post by Dino D'AGATA, in this week's POW, which I

thought was fantastic in many ways. So I decided to copy it and paste

it here. There you go...:

 

"What I find so interesting about this picture and about the

discussion surrounding it is that it's emblematic of a mentality all

of us cultivate here on photo.net. On the one hand, there's the

highly amateurish tendency to over- criticize work based on textbook

standards of photography, technical standards that can often have

little to do with uniqueness of vision, and there tends to be no

willingness whatsoever to encourage somebody's creative risks or to

lend somebody the benefit of the doubt in the development of his or

her vision. This problem tends to create inhibition because before

encouraging people to follow a visual interest, it creates in people

an overwhelming preoccupation with the technical. On the other hand,

because Evans is a respected photographer with an interesting

portfolio and creditable, published (and interesting, I might add)

editorial work, a shot like this is lent credence that it may not

have been lent had it been posted by somebody without Evans'

professional credit (and I don't mean to infer by this that I think

it isn't good work; I think it's interesting work, not my

particular "thing," but something I nevertheless respect). I'd like

to see more critical bantering on photo.net that helps people go

further in what they're attempting, not necessarily eliminating or

overlooking technical problems, but with the sense of fostering a

community that cultivates creativity and doesn't discourage it with a

kind of overly demanding finickiness that doesn't come from the

interest in helping somebody but from personal bitterness or simply

professional arrogance."

 

What do you think ?

Hi Marc.

I think Dino has expressed very succinctly many members feelings here. What amuses me though is that we will, in all likelihood, come here and say "yes, right on Dino" but at the same time neglect to see the very "overwhelming preoccupations" and "overly demanding finickiness" he refers to <i>in ourselves</i>!

Thanks Marc, I'm glad somebody found it helpful. Let's keep the discussion

going. By the way, I think your portfolio is top-notch.

I've never really understood criticism, it seems to me that you either find an image of interest or you don't, a view I also hold on music, film or any other art. When it comes to photography, I've always felt that technical quality, as the quotation suggests, is less relevant than some people seem to think.

 

Even where technique is important, it seems to me that 'quality' can be a slippery concept. For example, Roger Hicks has written, quite rightly in my opinion, that there is no such thing as 'correct' exposure but that, for a particular image, there is a 'perfect' exposure.

 

Some of the images that I have found most interesting have been technically awful but the content has caught my imagination. Sometimes, of course, it's the technical mastery of the process that makes an image arresting, so there's simply no rule that I can see which covers everything. I really think that's a big part of the fun.

I certainly look at the PoW as it appears each week but I do not comment on them. I feel that, if I was good enough to make meaningful comment on the PoW then you might actually see some of my work selected as PoW...but you do not. As such, I agree with George Bernard Shaw who notes that "If the lesser mind could measure the greater as a footrule can measure a pyramid..." then there might be some merit in throwing unrestricted comment open to everyone. Art as defined by vote...the great, unwashed masses adjudicating on the value of somebody elses' vision.

 

We are back to that great scene in "Dead Poet's Society" where the 'value' of poetry is plotted on a graph.

 

Certainly, in a forum such as this where we are generally concerned with matters of equipment and technicalities, it is not too surprising that a discussion of relative merits of an image descends to an analysis of pixel densities and gradation.

 

It is, I beleive, comforting to have something tangible (and what is measurable has that feeling of tangibility) to comment on when presented with an image that, by its very simplicity, has limited content.

 

Of course, the image with excessive content is criticised for being distracting while, as we have seen, the image with minimal content is considered, by some, to be 'boring'.

 

Perhaps this says something about how we expect to respond to a piece of art (a photograph in this case).

 

Passive viewers expect the image to 'entertain' them. They want the feeling but do not want to have to put any effort into the process. If the photo doesn't provide sufficient external stimulus then it is 'uninteresting', 'boring' and 'unengaging'.

 

Active viewers, on the other hand, enter into a dialog with the image. The simplicity stimulates them to explore the image more deeply rather than stopping at the level of content. This makes the image 'interesting' because they are active participants in the process.

 

The passive viewers are frequently disappointed, I find, because their attitude is "Ok, impress me!" and if it requires that they put effort into the process...they lose interest.

I used to critique photos, but stopped when I realized that, for the most part, I didn't know what the hell I was doing. It's very easy to nitpick the technical execution of a photograph. What's hard, at least for me, is to understand someone else's vision and, further, to make any useful commentary about why they were effective in communicating the vision or to suggest ways in which the vision could have been better communicated in the photograph.

 

I also agree that photo.net is much more about technical nitpicking than real philosophical discussion. Look at the number of daily posts in the Canon EOS forum (maybe 15 new threads per day) and compare that to the number of daily posts in this forum (average less than one per day). It's so much easier to blame bad photographs on the lens, the number of pixels, the brand of camera, or whether it's digital or film, than to look in the mirror and ask the photographer what the intent was when the shutter was pushed and whether that idea or feeling was communicated well by that photograph.

What I particularly like in Dino's comment, is the emphasis he placed on encouraging creativity. This is really what I would like to see more of on this site. I fall foul of analysing technical processes as do many, but that is usually the area you find most of us wishing to improve. I think balancing a negative aspect with another positive helps. Regardless, I like the 'active participant' role mentioned by Meryl, and have in fact often written that I see an 'open to interpretation' image as a gift on the part of the artist. I don't always want to be told what an image is about, or what 'purpose' it is supposed to serve. Sometimes I do find that there are too many viewer demands for explanations from the artist, and I think that expectations for an image with an expressly clear 'purpose' are not only unnecessary, but also disparaging for the artist. It practically equates to a person saying work without a clear message is 'pointless'.

 

The art of critiqueing is a tricky skill, but encouragement does go a long way, particularly if the maker has taken a risk as Dino says. And as far as creativity goes, it is sometimes an entity in it's own right. A true creative process evolves [from inspiration] in a heuristic fashion, not an algorithmic one. So, too many demands and fixed expectations can be a 'pointless' phenomenon in itself.

 

So what can we do about it? Well respecting the fact that the artist had a purpose for starters. Even if we can not see it, I think we should give the artist the benefit of the doubt, and offer feedback about how we as viewers are affected by their image. If we are not affected at all, then why bother writing anything? "It's boring" "There's no message" or "It doesn't do anything for me" is blatantly dissmissive, and imo downright rude.

 

Having said all that, I hold my hand up, and regret having fallen foul of these high principles myself.

I'm a firm believer in <A HREF="http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:RyCoMBjoWzsJ:www.wfu.edu/~laugh/painting2/bacon.pdf%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a">Francis Bacon</A>'s (the modern painter) attitude towards criticism:<BR /><BR />"I think that destructive criticism, especially by other artists, is certainly the most helpful criticism. Even if, when you analyze it, you may feel that it's wrong, at least you analyze it and think about it. When people praise you, well, it's very pleasant to be praised, but it doesn't actually help you."<BR /><BR />

As for the POW 'discussions', a great deal of it is meaningless and trite (oddly enough, so are most of the selected pictures). Which is why I rarely can be bothered to look in anymore.

>>>>I've never really understood criticism, it seems to me that

you either find an image of interest or you don't, a view I also hold

on music, film or any other art<<<<

 

Criticism is not simply saying whether you find it interesting or

not. It is exact the opposite. It is a discourse to engage the

photograph and discuss the elements that may be alter to

enhance the sum of its part. A good technical critique is difficult

and critique on individual vision is almost impossible, that is why

most here just state what they like or dislike of whatever photo is

in question. Sure, ultimately you like the pic or you don't but

that's not critique nor does it represent the merit of a photo.

I too like negative criticism better but I wouldn't say that apply to

most. One got to be strong in one's work to take negativity. I took

a intro photo class way back and the instructor was damn tough

and many were just short of crying after her critique.

Leslie,

 

I agree with you that negative criticism can be hard to take. But people who want to grow in a creative medium have to learn not only to take it, but learn from it.

 

This learning can consist of either embracing and/or rejecting (either may be perfectly valid) this criticism -- from an informed postion.

 

Anything less is based on luck or fraud.

Marc, thanks for posting this forum. At first blush, it seems to me that both positive and negative criticisms are valuable. The positive ones keep you going, give you hope that you're not wasting your time, while the "negative" ones give you direction.

 

The fact that we call them "positive" and "negative" is a real shame. Perhaps constructive and unconstructive would be better words. If that were so, a comment of "Wow" would be unconstructive, but still positive. "Crappy work" would be both unconstructive and negative. And so on.

 

Anyway, didn't the site go through endure misconceptions along these lines a few years ago? Seems I remember a lot of commotion about honest critiques, honest ratings, and the like. Is this the same? I sure hope we don't have a repeat of all that. It was unconstructive.

I don't mean to infer that negative criticism is bad; what I don't like on

photo.net sometimes is that people throw a three at you without bothering to

say "This photo fails because you did this or that..." When I post something it's

always in the hope that somebody with better experience than me will say

something like, "Well, it works because of this, " or "it doesn't work because of

this." Instead what we end up with a lot is casual web browsers who are

bored and think they know what they're doing when they rate your stuff.

Tolstoy remarked once that "critics are outside the contagion of art." I think

that if you want to heavily critique somebody's work, then you have to have

something of an affinity for the type of work it is, which gives you the ability to

say the person, "Almost, but your exposure is off," or "the background

detracts" or whatever... I stay away from any work that I don't feel this way

about, because I wouldn't say anything useful to the person about it, while on

the other hand, when somebody does something I like, I try to go beyond my

emotional/aesthetic response and look critically to see why I think it's good.

Most of my own black and white work is usually given helpful critiques by

other people who shoot black and white street work. If I don't like nudes, then

posting a 2 on somebody's nude because it personally offends me is

ridiculous. My preference would be that if you're going to tell me what I've

done is lousy, then give me solid aesthetic reasons why the picture doesn't

achieve what you believe I set out to achieve; tell me why you don't like it--and

the reason had better not be because black and white street photography isn't

to your liking (which I can tell when I look in your portfolio full of 3.2 megapixel

flower shots ;).

"Sure, ultimately you like the pic or you don't but that's not critique nor does it represent the merit of a photo."

 

That's where I take issue with the whole critique business. In my opinion, all art is subjective. I fail to see that any image has any 'merit' other than that some people find it interesting. The critique thing seems to me to be no more than a status game aimed at bolstering the egos of the critic and his supporters.

 

That's not to say that you can't usefully tell someone what would increase your interest in the image but I think that such advice is by definition still subjective.

"The critique thing seems to me to be no more than a status game aimed at bolstering the egos of the critic and his supporters." -Harvey Platter

 

I'm a huge cynic, but Harvey, surely you can't believe this? And, if a critique is good, it will illuminate aspects of an image the casual observer might have missed, which would be a benefit to everyone, not just the critic and his supporters.

 

To illustrate my point, a movie review by Roeper and Ebert carries more weight in my mind than one from a 15 year old introvert. Why? Because the professionals will tell me EXACTLY why the film was good, whereas the teenager might just grunt and say it was "awesome," without giving me anything to look forward to, or to think about.

 

Critics succeed because they view their subject matter with a vision and perspective that opens the eyes of their readers. Yes, the "supporters" benefit, and the critic gains some measure of satisfaction from being heard, but there are greater goods in the process. It's not all about ego, but ego has to play a part. Without ego, we wouldn't have decisve leaders in any part of society. They would all be reluctant, and culture would stagnate. Don't you think?

I find Dino's opening comment to be quite insightful. His comment about, "the

highly amateurish tendency to over- criticize work based on textbook

standards of photography, technical standards...." is something that I have

noticed a great deal on photo forums. However there is a logic to this

occurance.

 

When you first learn or are taught photography, there is an emphasis on

learning the technical aspects first. I assume this is because if you didn't learn

the technical first there would be no image that existed. Previous to digital,

most novices were just pleased when an image "came out", so the empahsis

was about technical. Also historically in art, the road to mastering an art was

to first master the technical. once having mastered the technical you now had

at your disposal all the tools needed to create whatever you could imagine,

but if you lack true mastery of the technical, you can only create within the

parameters of your limited technical ability, a true barrier to unfettered

creativity.

 

As Dino points out, Evans' image though possibly technically deficient, has

credibility because his body of work indicates that he has technical mastery.

What does this mean? To me this means that when someone who clearly has

technical mastery chooses to create an image that chooses to ignore

conventional ideas about proper technique, that they are doing so as an

intentional means of expression in that image. You no longer view the lack of

technical excellence as an apparent lack of skill on the photographer's part,

but now view it as a conscious choice. This makes you look at the work in a

different light. Why did he/she choose to break the rules? What does this

choice do to the message in the photograph?

 

As for the value of criticism in art, it's invaluable. Of course the only criticism of

any value is honest criticism. The single most important critic of your work has

to be yourself. I have met many highly regarded photographers in my lifetime,

and the most consistent quality I have noticed in them is that they are their

own toughest critics. They are not trying to please an audience, they are trying

to please themselves, something far harder.

 

Every time I look at a newly developed negative with a loupe, i am critiquing

it. Every print I pull from fixer and stick on the back splash is critiqued. It's

critiqued technically, (is that burn obvious? hard edges? ) and creatively

(does that burn express the feeling of the scene?).

 

When you study art and you sit in a class room and view a thousand slides, or

make countless trips to museums to view art, what are you thinking when you

see the art? Do you merely absorb it without thought, or do you critique each

and every piece in your head? Of course you critique it, when you see a

photograph you can't help but have thoughts about the image, what would

you do differently? What do you like or dislike about it. That is a critique.

 

The problem with critiques from others is that everyone has their own POV,

and that POV may or may not have any validity when it comes to critiquing

other people's work. Someone who is totally caught up on the technical side

may not give a worthwhile critique to someone who is inentionally breaking

all the rules. Another person who cares only about seeing something new,

may not encourage a sloppy photographer to learn technique. Each person

has to look at the source of the criticism and judge the merit of it for

themselves.

 

"The critique thing seems to me to be no more than a status game aimed at

bolstering the egos of the critic and his supporters." -Harvey Platter

 

That is simply ridiculous. While I'm sure there are people who give out critisim

just to make someone else feel bad, most people criticize work based on

their personal beliefs, and are fairly honest about it. And in most cases when

they are being dishonest it's in the direction of being positive about a piece in

order not to hurt the feelings of the artist.

I'll play, Doug.

 

:-)))

 

In my opinion, the best film reviewers are those who tell me what they like or dislike about a film. If I feel that they think the same way I do, I'll find their review helpfull, otherwise, I turn elsewhere.

 

I don't think you're talking about ego so much as aggression and I'd argue that in a world all too full of explosives and other nasties, we could do with much less aggression and far more co-operation. I'll stop there for fear of going so far off topic they'll need the Starship Enterprise to haul me back!

"That is simply ridiculous"

 

Brian, when you grow out of your retarded adolescence, it may be possible to carry on a discussion with you, but as you've shown all too often before, you have all the people skills of a rabid dog.

 

Do me a favour and ignore me, eh?

It's ironic I suppose but a knowledge of the technical aspects of photography can sometimes hinder your appreciation of an image. Just now, while examining a theatre poster my initial positive impression of the image was tempered when I noticed on closer examination that most of the highlights were blown out. After that it just seemed like a so-so picture. Am I turning into a photography snob? With my own work my struggle is to find and develop my creative vision - by no means have I mastered the technical aspects but I know given enough time and hard work it is well within my capabilities. Whether I have any 'artistic' talent is another matter - the route to discovering my own vision, finding my own photographic 'voice' is far from clear and is not very well signposted at all.

Harvey please note that I stated that your comment was ridiculous, that I

made no personal attack on you, and that I went on to support why I felt it was

ridiculous. You did not choose to reply by either supporting your statement or

by disproving my comment with any facts, you chose instead to launch into a

personal attack of me by making several insulting comments about me.

 

Your comment is a perfect example of the behavior that you seek to attack me

for. Pot, kettle, black.

 

I'm curious as to why you have such an extremely negative view of

photographic criticism. Do you feel that people have criticized your

photographs too harshly and that their intent was malevolent? Do you always

have a negative experience when people critique your work? Or do you

criticize others "as a status game aimed at bolstering the egos of the critic

and his supporters".

Stop trying to appear innocent, Brian, you know exactly why I called you on this. As

previously, you laid down the law and were rude to boot. It was on this particular forum, if

I recall correctly, that a number of other people took you to task for just such behaviour

but you do not appear to have learnt anything.

 

So far as I'm concerned the matter is closed, though I have no doubt you'll have another

winge, such appears to be your way.

Brian,

Looking at your website and at your portfolio, I have to say that your remarks

have far more weight than mine, because you have a body of work that

reflects a vision and an experience that's simply amazing to me. Funny that

when I look at your shots, I don't have the first impulse to approach them

technically, and that's because they're moving and striking, which means that

technically you've pulled off what you intended, i.e., I'm not looking "behind"

the image to see the strings and the puppeteer's hands. That to me is a sign

that the images come off, and quite well at that. As you can see though, the

type of images you make are something I have an affinity for, so I'd probably

be biased on the side of favoring them, even if I found technical flaws. If a

picture lifts me to another realm of reality and makes me see something

beyond the literal image, then regardless of anything else, I'm left gaping. I

think this is the point, isn't it? You can read a thirteen-year-old's poem about

his girlfriend and it may have all of the same aspects of love in a Shakespeare

sonnet, but then you can go and read the Shakespeare sonnet and

something different happens to you, even though it's the same thing: love. It's

this transcendency and timelessness I look for in a picture. Lately, I'm

studying the Magnum Stories book, and listening to somebody like Eve

Arnold, for instance, talk about how she photographed Malcolm X gives me

some take on how it is that her famous shot, for instance, is more than just a

stern looking man with his hand raised next to the side of his face. Work like

this comes from time with the subject, love for the subject, and most of all, a

willingness to shoot roll after roll until you come up with what you're looking

for. Flannery O'Connor once said that vocation implies limit. The more you

hone down the one thing you do well and practice it over and over, the better

it gets. For Eve Arnold, it was photo stories about Malcolm X and others; for

you, Brian, it's those profound landscapes that go to another level. I can't

imagine looking at one of them and talking to you about tone. It would be like

meeting Picasso and asking him why he put little squares on his canvas.

Harvey,

 

If taste is all we have to go on then merit would all just be about

popularity. Is that what you really think (and want)? People

magazine over national geographic? sport illustrated swimsuit

annual over bob frank's les americans? the next ben affleck

movie over say atom egoyan's sweet here after?

 

Merit ,however unquantifable it may be, surely do exist and count.

You can say you didn't care much for les americans but you can't

ignore its impact on 20th century photography. Egoyan's non

linear, temporary narratives, Hal Hartley's dialogue driven

playlike films, Christopher Doyle's camera work are certainly

worth something no?? Acourse it's subjective but subjectivity

along with knowledge and experience is worth much more than

plain jane subjectivity.

 

That ropper new guy that replaced siskel really blows btw.

Dino, I wish I could think and write as well as you do. You put your finger on a lot of important issues and I thank you for it. Thank you Mark for bringing it to my (our) attention.

"If taste is all we have to go on then merit would all just be about popularity."

 

I'd argue that merit is, in this context, simply a code word for personal taste and therefor,

from my point of view, the statement is irrelevant. Note that I'm not setting myself up as

the arbiter. I'm positing the theory that there is no standard beyond personal taste and

that your views are every bit as valid as mine when it comes to art.